DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
 NAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB)
                     DISCHARGE REVIEW
                   DECISIONAL DOCUMENT

 ex-CTASA, USN
Docket No. ND03-00208

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review, received 20021121, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable.  The Applicant requested a documentary record discharge review.  The Applicant did not list any representative on the DD Form 293.

Decision

A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 20031003.  After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, no impropriety or inequity in the characterization of the Applicant’s service was discovered by the NDRB.  The Board’s vote was unanimous that the character of the discharge shall not change.  The discharge shall remain: GENERAL (UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS/PATTERN OF MISCONDUCT), authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 1910-140 (formerly 3630600).

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues, as stated:

“1. After six months at sea aboard the USS CHOSIN as the only CTA onboard, I received a good eval and had a great time on WESTPAC.  Six months after returning to Monterey I was discharged.  This was not because of poor work performance or lack of rate knowledge.  This was because of a devastating personality conflict that every staff member witnessed.  Attached is the remarks made by my LPO YN1 (Ret) T__ J. W__.”

“I am now trying to be a Modesto Police Officer and am doing great in the academy, but I would like to hang an honorable discharge on my wall instead of a general discharge because of a personality conflict.”

Documentation

In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:

Letter from Applicant to Naval Discharge Review Board, dated November 10, 2002
        Copy of DD Form 214
        Enlisted Report and Counseling Record, dated  September 25, 1997
        Letter from Applicant to Naval Discharge Review Board, dated December 12, 2002
        Letter from Applicant to Board of Naval Corrections, not dated.
        Letter from YN1(RET) T__ J. W__ to Inspector General, DON, dated January 5,    
        1999
        Letter from CTI3 O__ M. P__ to Naval Security Group Command, dated August        
        19, 1998.
        Letter from Applicant to Naval Security Group Detachment, Monterey, dated April 21,  
        1998
        Letter from Applicant to Jewelers National Bank, dated April 27, 1998
        Letter from Applicant to Mr. S__, dated April 27, 1998
        Memorandums For The Record from Applicant (2), dated April 28, 1998
        Memorandum For The Record, dated April 29, 1998
        Letter from OIC, Naval Security Group Detachment, Monterey to OIC, PSD, Monterey,  
        not dated.
        Letter from P__ C__, not dated
        Final Grades Spring 1999/2000, Fall 2001/2002, dated December 14, 2002
       Employee Performance Report, dated October 25, 1999
       Letter from City of Modesto Police Personnel Department, dated December 6, 2002
       Letter from T__ C__, dated December 13, 2002
       Letter from B__ T__, dated December 9, 2002
       Letter from Applicant to Naval Discharge Review Board, dated December 18, 2002
       Employee Performance Appraisal, Ahern Rentals, Dated August 25, 2000
       Employee Performance Appraisal, Ahern Rentals, Dated June 25, 2001
       Letter from Criminal Justice Training Center, dated December 16, 2002
       Letter from C__ B__,  dated December 12, 2002
       Applicant resume, dated May 19, 2002
       Letter from Applicant to Naval Discharge Review Board, dated January 4, 2003
       Letter from Applicant to Naval Discharge Review Board, dated April 24, 2003
       Certificate from Basic Law Enforcement Academy, not dated
       Modesto College Educational Plan, dated March 31, 2003

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge):

	Inactive: USNR (DEP)	950324 - 950605	COG
	Active:    None

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  950606		Date of Discharge:  980611

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    03  00  06
	Inactive:  None

Age at Entry:  19			Years Contracted:  4 

Education Level:  12			AFQT:  52

Highest Rate:  CTASA

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Performance:  3.00 (1)	Behavior:  3.00 (1)		OTA:  3.00

Military Decorations:  NDM

Unit/Campaign/Service Awards:  None

Days of Unauthorized Absence:  16

Character, Narrative Reason, and Authority of Discharge (at time of issuance):

GENERAL (UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS/PATTERN OF MISCONDUCT), authority:  NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 1910-140 (formerly 3630600).

Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events:

960301:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 92:  Failure to obey order or regulation. Award: Forfeiture of $87 per month for 1 month.  No indication of appeal in the record.

Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events:

9711XX	Unauthorized Absence (EXTRACTED FROM APPLICANT’S LETTER TO THE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS)

971209	Surrender from Unauthorized Absence (EXTRACTED FROM APPLICANT’S LETTER TO THE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS)

980611:	DD-214 lists dates of loss time due to Unauthorized Absence (971124 – 971209)

	Missing discharge package.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The Applicant was discharged on 19980611 under general conditions for misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct (A and B).  The Board presumed regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs (C).  In the Applicant’s case, the Board could discern no impropriety or inequity and therefore considered the Applicant’s discharge proper and equitable (C and D). 

In the Applicant’s issue 1, the Board found that normally, to permit relief, an error or injustice must have existed during the period of enlistment in question.  No such error or injustice occurred during the Applicant’s enlistment.  While the applicant may feel that his chain of command performed unjustly, it does not mitigate the Applicant’s disobedience of the orders and directives that regulate good order and discipline in the naval service.  His service record is marred by award of non-judicial punishment (NJP), and an Unauthorized Absence.  The Applicant has not provided sufficient verifiable documentation of good character and conduct to mitigate his pattern of misconduct.

It must be noted that most Sailors serve honorably and well and therefore earn honorable discharges.  In fairness to those Sailors, commanders and separation authorities are tasked to ensure that undeserving Sailors receive no higher characterization than is due.  An upgrade to honorable conditions is inappropriate.  Relief denied.

The Applicant remains eligible for a personal appearance hearing, provided an application is received, at the NDRB, within 15 years from the date of discharge.  The Applicant can provide additional documentation to support any claims of post-service accomplishments at that time.  Representation at a personal appearance hearing is recommended but not required.

Pertinent Regulation/Law (at time of discharge)

A.  Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560C), Change 18, effective
12 Dec 1997 until 21 Aug 2002, Article 1910-140 (formerly 3630600), SEPARATION BY REASON OF MISCONDUCT - PATTERN OF MISCONDUCT.

B.  Secretary of the Navy Instruction 5420.174C of 22 August 1984 (Manual for Discharge Review, 1984), enclosure (1), Chapter 2, AUTHORITY/POLICY FOR DEPARTMENTAL DISCHARGE REVIEW.  

C.  Secretary of the Navy Instruction 5420.174C of 22 August 1984 (Manual for Discharge Review, 1984), enclosure (1), Chapter 9, paragraph 9.2, PROPRIETY OF THE DISCHARGE.

D.  Secretary of the Navy Instruction 5420.174C of 22 August 1984 (Manual for Discharge Review, 1984), enclosure (1), Chapter 9, paragraph 9.3, EQUITY OF THE DISCHARGE.

PART IV - INFORMATION FOR THE APPLICANT

If you believe that the decision in your case is unclear, not responsive to the issues you raised, or does not otherwise comport with the decisional document requirements of DoD Directive 1332.28, you may submit a complaint in accordance with Enclosure (5) of that Directive.  You should read Enclosure (5) of the Directive before submitting such a complaint.  The complaint procedure does not permit a challenge of the merits of the decision; it is designed solely to ensure that the decisional documents meet applicable requirements for clarity and responsiveness.  You may view DoD Directive 1332.28 and other Decisional Documents by going online at “afls14.jag.af.mil”.  

The names, and votes of the members of the Board are recorded on the original of this document and may be obtained from the service records by writing to:

		Naval Council of Personnel Boards
		Attn:  Naval Discharge Review Board
		720 Kennon Street SE Rm 309
		Washington Navy Yard DC  20374-5023